Part 1 | Part 2

Nida’s “revolution” in Bible translation could have never been accomplished without the coining of “dynamic equivalence.” In addition to it catching people’s attention in contrast to the more technical terms that he used thirteen years prior in Bible Translating, ¹the success of this term is also due to the tendency for people to not recognize what Nida meant by it or even worse, to completely misunderstand it. These tendencies – especially by biblical conservatives – have proved invaluable in allowing Nida’s agenda of cultural relativism to go undetected by them, for they assume that “dynamic equivalence” is a valid translation theory compatible with the belief that the Bible is the divinely-inspired Word of God.

The late Dr. William Hull, who served as a provost and dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out this mistaken assumption among those of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) who were using Today’s English Version (TEV; a.k.a. Good News for Modern Man; later, the Good News Bible/Good News Translation), the first English version of the New Testament that was rendered according to Nida’s theory of “dynamic equivalence”:

What are the implications of widespread SBC acceptance of the TEV? To begin with, we have here the employment of a…daring translation theory… Of course, Southern Baptists do not yet realize all of this…Shout it not from the housetops, but the TEV is clearly incompatible with traditional notions of verbal inspiration and the theologies built thereon. It could be that Southern Baptists will embrace the TEV with their hearts before they grasp its implications with their heads. ² [emphasis added]

Definitions

In order to grasp this daring translation theory with our heads it is necessary to see how Nida defined “dynamic equivalence.” Four years after cautiously introducing the term, ³ Nida widely used it in his 1964 publication, Toward a Science of Translating (TASOT). Curiously, he did not provide a standardized definition for “dynamic equivalence,” but described it in various ways throughout the book such as the following:

A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message. ⁴ [emphasis added]

In contrast with formal-equivalence translations others are oriented toward dynamic equivalence. In such a translation the focus of attention is directed, not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response. A dynamic-equivalence (or D-E) translation may be described as one concerning which a bilingual and bicultural person can justifiably say, “That is just the way we would say it.” ⁵ [emphasis added]

One way of defining a D-E [i.e. dynamic equivalence] translation is to describe it as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message.” This type of definition contains three essential terms: (1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message, (2) natural, which points toward the receptor language, and (3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation. ¶ However, since a D-E translation is directed primarily toward equivalence of response [emphasis added here] rather than equivalence of form, it is important to define more fully the implications of the word natural as applied to such translations. Basically, the word natural is applicable to three areas of the communication process; for a natural rendering must fit (1) the receptor language and culture as a whole, (2) the context of the particular message, and (3) the receptor-language audience. ⁶

In 1969, Nida, along with co-author, Charles R. Taber, at last provided what is regarded as the “official” definition for “dynamic equivalence” in The Theory and Practice of Translation (TAPOT):

dynamic equivalence: quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR is essentially like that of the original receptors. Frequently, the form of the original text is changed; but as long as the change follows the rules of back transformation in the source language, of contextual consistency in the transfer, and of transformation in the receptor language, the message is preserved and the translation is faithful. The opposite principal [sic] is FORMAL CORRESPONDENCE. ⁷

Differing Names, Same Theory

Before addressing the emphasis on “receptor response,” ⁸ it is important to note that Nida did not differentiate between “dynamic equivalence” and what he wrote in Bible Translating. In the article, “Eugene Nida – The Bible and ‘Dynamic Equivalence’” (1981), he stated:

I presented this theory for the first time in a nineteen forty-seven book called Bible Translating,.. Most translation has been viewed in terms of formal correspondence [i.e. literal], words in one language corresponding to words in the other. But we define dynamic equivalence in terms of a relationship: the present receptor of the message needs to understand it in the same way the original receptors understood it. There is a dynamic relationship between the two sets of understandings.” ⁹

The importance of acknowledging that his “theory” did not undergo any changes in spite of using different terminology for it helps us recognize that when he eventually abandoned “dynamic equivalence” for “functional equivalence,” he reverted to the terminology that he used in Bible Translating, albeit with a slight change of wording. ¹⁰ In the preface to his joint publication with Jan de Waard, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation (1986), he wrote:

One conspicuous difference in terminology in this volume in contrast with Theory and Practice of Translation and Toward a Science of Translating is the use of the expression “functional equivalence” rather than “dynamic equivalence.” The substitution of “functional equivalence” is not designed to suggest anything essentially different from what was earlier designated by the phrase “dynamic equivalence.” ¹¹

By reintroducing the terminology from Bible Translating, and in light of his explanation to Peter Wosh that “dynamic equivalence” provided the attention grabbing that “functional equivalence” did not, ¹² it is clear that “functional equivalence” is the same “theory” that Nida had continually presented, notwithstanding his suspect use of the qualifier, “essentially.” ¹³

An Untenable and Flawed Theory

Returning to the above descriptions and definition for “dynamic equivalence,” the emphasis on receptor response is obvious. This emphasis however, is exactly contrary to translation. As with the two examples given at the beginning of part I of this series, success in flying airplanes and performing heart surgeries across languages demands faithfulness to authorial intent by means of precise renderings, not “equivalent” approximations based on the receptor’s culture. Y.C. Whang, a professional translator of over 30 English books into Korean, ¹⁴ assessed Nida’s theory as follows:

[H]ow can a translator confirm whether the response of the former induced by the translation is identical to that of the latter?…In a sense, functional equivalence [i.e. dynamic equivalence] appears smart in theory, but it seems impracticable in reality…if the burden of translation is moved from the author’s meaning to the receptor’s response, where does the translator search for the meaning of the text?…in terms of my own experience…I have presupposed that translators are responsible to authors, not readers…In this respect Nida’s suggestion is opposed to my practice. According to him, translators should put themselves not in the position of the author but in that of readers then and now…However, Nida does not state this plainly, but presupposes it. Thus, because the concrete way of achieving the suggested goal is not provided, I cannot find the applicability of his suggestions. As pointed out earlier, although his books are useful for improving one’s translating skill, his suggestions of the new criteria for translation are, it seems to me, untenable… ¹⁵

Whang judged Nida’s “theory” to be untenable because of its emphasis on finding meaning in the receptor’s response. Nida, like Whang, also conceded that his focus on receptor response was problematic but for a different reason:

A third element in the naturalness of a D-E [i.e. dynamic equivalence] translation is the extent to which the message fits the receptor-language audience. This appropriateness must be judged on the basis of the level of experience and the capacity for decoding, if one is to aim at any real dynamic equivalence. On the other hand, one is not always sure how the original audience responded or were supposed to respond. ¹⁶ [emphasis added]

By Nida’s own admission “dynamic equivalence” is seriously flawed because his criterion for translation, that is, “the RESPONSE of the RECEPTOR [being] essentially like that of the original receptors,” ¹⁷ is impossible to reproduce if “one is not always sure how the original audience responded or were supposed to respond.” Even if one assumes the validity of “dynamic equivalence” its application would be limited to those situations in which the receptor response is (or, responses are) known. Further complicating matters is the addition of “were supposed to respond.” If the receptor is supposed to respond in a particular way, meaning is no longer found in the receptor but in the desired response of the receptor. By this addition Nida effectively undermined his entire theory.

Thirty-four years after this revealing, but often overlooked admission, Nida showed that he did not fail to recognize problems with his “theory” even though it had gained wide acceptance among evangelicals. When asked the following question, “Is it legitimate for us to regard your theory of “dynamic equivalence” as achieving harmony in language and culture?,” ¹⁸ Nida responded:

I sincerely wish that “dynamic equivalence” could resolve such differences, but it is only a step in the right direction. My ultimate purpose is to present translation in the framework of two interacting symbolic systems: language and culture, in which all the elements carry meaning. Accordingly, we must not only look to the meaning of words but to the meaning of the cultural elements referred to by such words. There will, however, never be complete harmony because changes in language and changes in culture do not always go hand in hand. ¹⁹ [emphasis added]

If the originator of “dynamic equivalence” was convinced that it could not produce a translation resulting in “complete harmony” between language and culture, why would he maintain that it was “a step in the right direction”? If technical manuals, in spite of the challenges of translation, can be precisely rendered from their original languages into other languages by means other than “dynamic equivalence,” one would think that Nida would have abandoned it. This brings us back to the astute observation by Frederick “Boone” Aldridge, SIL Corporate Historian, regarding Nida’s real goal:

By driving a wedge between the text and its message Nida was carrying out a direct assault on the idea that literalness functioned to preserve truth. ²⁰

While teaching at Asbury Seminary, Nida said:

I don’t believe in super-cultural (or, supercultural) truth because truth only is in terms of a cultural context. ²¹

The reason why Nida was against literal translation was not due to the actual challenges and difficulties involved in translation but because he embraced the cultural relativism of the writings of certain linguists to which he had been introduced during his undergraduate studies at UCLA. ²² It is from this standpoint that Nida wrote the following in Bible Translating:

In all situations involving what we term ‘equivalence’ there is actually no exact equivalence. No corresponding two words in two different languages ever have identically the same meaning. The problem is not one of finding absolute equivalents, but of finding relatively close equivalents. There can be no absolute standard of conformance. It must always be a matter of degree. To those who are accustomed to insist upon absolute blacks and whites, this may seem rather strange. Nevertheless, to anyone who will take the time to examine the situation carefully, it will soon become obvious that we must work in varying shades of gray, not pure black and white. We attempt to approach an absolute standard, but we know from the start that it cannot be reached, for the language medium which we must use is not a set of exact mathematical formulas. ²³

Nida’s use of “equivalence,” as shown in Part II, presupposes cultural relativism. He was not merely referring to recognized differences in the semantic ranges between “corresponding two words in two different languages” but upholding American Structuralist ideas regarding language. ²⁴ One of the greatest features of language is that precise meaning is possible in translation because many “corresponding two words in two different languages” have identical meanings notwithstanding differences in their semantic ranges.  Communication between different languages would be impossible without it.

Implications for Bible Translation

If “dynamic equivalence,” with its emphasis on receptor response, is opposed to translation in general, it is especially devastating when applied to Bible translation. First, large portions of its text could not be translated since the response of the original audience is unknown. Second, there is no straightforward way to account for multiple responses from the original audience, especially conflicting ones. Third, and most importantly, it completely undermines its divine inspiration by bypassing the need to faithfully and accurately communicate authorial intent. The need therefore, for precise renderings and maintaining, as much as possible, verbal concordance ²⁵ of its key terminology are discarded in exchange for “equivalences” (i.e. so-called cultural approximations). In a 2002 interview, Nida said,

Many translators of the Bible who wanted to be ‘faithful’ to the text by translating literally, were actually being unfaithful with the meaning of the text. So I wrote a book on Bible translating, just to help people solve their problems. ²⁶

Later in the same interview he said, “Good translators almost always improve on the originals…” [emphasis added]. ²⁷ Although the immediate context was referring to the translation program of the European Union, it is clear from both his reference to Bible Translating as well as the rest of his work that he felt the same about the “translation” of the Bible. ²⁸ If “good translators” can create a better message than the originals, then the authorial intent of the source is replaced by the “translators,” which is in keeping with the primacy given to receptor response in “dynamic equivalence.” Whether through the receptor or the “translator,” Nida was bent on undermining the authorial intent of Scripture and its valid translation into any given language.

Dr. Hull, quoted above at the beginning of this article, well understood the implications of Nida’s theory for Bible translation when he said, “the TEV is clearly incompatible with traditional notions of verbal inspiration.” ²⁹ In order to understand why Nida would risk his reputation – which was not in keeping with his thinking and behavior – by presenting a self-admitted, seriously deficient, and untenable theory for translation, requires a look into what Charles Taber, his colleague and co-author of TAPOT, referred to as Nida’s “manipulativeness,” simultaneously describing him as “devious,” ³⁰ which will be the focus of Part IV of this series.